Remove Astar Degens from dApp Staking

[Amil_Gaoul]

@Community_Council

With Tokenomics 3.0 now active and dApp Staking limited to only 16 high impact projects, it is time to evaluate whether every project in the list truly delivers measurable value to the Astar ecosystem and the ASTR token.
Astar Degens current status:
NFT DAO/collection focused on community events, NFT bridging to Soneium, and internal reward distribution to OG holders.
A significant portion of their dApp Staking rewards is redistributed directly to NFT holders (monthly ASTR subsidies, staking campaigns, airdrops).
On chain activity is almost exclusively staking claims and reward distribution, with minimal broader utility.
NFT trading volume remains very low, with many collections UNPINNED and limited secondary market activity on Astar EVM marketplaces.
X account (@AstarDegens) shows consistently low engagement (most recent posts have single digit likes and almost zero reposts).

https://x.com/AstarDegens

While Astar Degens has built a loyal community, their contribution is primarily social/NFT focused and internal. They do not provide significant DeFi utility, composability, liquidity, or sustainable value accrual to the ASTR token beyond rewarding their own NFT holders.

Alignment with Tokenomics 3.0 goals:
The new system was designed to concentrate rewards on high impact projects that drive real on chain activity, liquidity, and ecosystem growth, not to subsidize internal NFT distributions.
Keeping Astar Degens in the 16 slots occupies a valuable position that could go to a protocol with measurable DeFi impact (DEX, lending, infrastructure, etc.).
Proposed action:
Remove Astar Degens from dApp Staking starting next cycle (or as soon as governance allows).
This frees the slot for a higher impact project and aligns better with the new “high impact” criteria.
I am open to discussion and data from the Astar Degens team if they believe they provide more ecosystem value than currently visible.
Looking forward to community feedback.

[ERC20s]

I think we should review all of the 16 dapps at the same time..
Something that surprized me was that I think 6 (correct me if I’m wrong) was willing to turn up to an AMA. I would expect more of the 16 dapps to be taking the initiative to turn up to listen to the future of ASTAR..

Since there was already a review to select the 16 dapps..
Then maybe we can just receive that report from the team directly? @Gaius_sama

Astar Degens wasn’t the first on my bingo card to get taken down..
I think they provide a lot to the space through their various treasury adventures..

[Marroz]

Before fully expressing my opinion on your proposal, I prefer to wait for the responses from the directly interested parties — first and foremost from Astar Degen and the community council.That said, I can’t disagree with you on the volume issue. However, it must be noted that in the current market — and especially on Astar after everything we’ve been through — it’s extremely difficult to achieve decent engagement.Personally, I don’t see any reason to remove Astar Degen from dApp Staking as long as they continue to remain active. They deserve to stay in. I would understand the need to remove them only if there were another project waiting in line that is currently blocked because of them. I’m not aware of any such situation, so I’d appreciate it if someone could correct me if there actually is a queue of projects ready to enter.Intuitively — and this is just my personal interpretation — I don’t believe there is one.It’s not necessary to focus solely on DeFi (which I still consider a core pillar of any blockchain). We need to cover all areas.I’ll stop here. As I said earlier, I’m waiting for the responses from the other users.

[ERC20s]

I feel like sonevibe and d8a should be in the 16 as they’re both creative dapps that are building specifically for Astar..
But it’s difficult to say what makes the 16 better..

I think we should wait for the report that was made by the team..
I feel this report should be posted today for full transparency!

[Marroz]

I had the suspicion that you preferred those… That’s exactly why there is a council without conflicts of interest and, possibly, a community that makes the decisions. As the team has extensively explained, any new dApp or old one is welcome, especially if it fully respects the parameters. Therefore, I have no doubt that those you mentioned will also be taken into consideration once everything has been verified.It is not correct to call for a report today just to give the impression of transparency on an issue that someone raised today. The reports, as provided for in the internal regulations, will be an essential metric for continuing to benefit from the program. Let’s avoid unnecessarily stressing the teams.

[ERC20s]

The problem is that a bias has been created amongst friends..
NFT bridges for example has various bugs and very little information about its product/activity but managed to secure a position (probably because one of the team is an advisor.)..
But the actual product is basically irrelevant now because ccip can bridge an NFT anyway..

But ultimately my point is that the having the team decide what ones are good/bad and then mainly promoting the ones that are related to the team is basically creating a bureaucracy within astar.

[Marroz]

On this point, I’m with you all the way. I’ve always maintained that the absence of conflicts of interest must be total and cover every angle — a full 360 degrees — across all areas, from the dApps right down to the composition of the teams………

[Gaius_sama]

Thanks for raising this, and for the broader conversation happening here.

On the AMA: We intentionally invited 6 projects for this round, not all 16. A 1-hour call with 16 teams leaves almost no time for each to speak. The format was designed for quality discussion. Future AMAs will rotate through the roster.

On the selected projects and the rationale behind the 16: That sits with the @Community_Council. I’ll leave it to them to address directly.

On timing: The new system launched two weeks ago. Reassessing the lineup this early, based on snapshot data, is premature. We should let it run and evaluate impact over a meaningful period before drawing conclusions.

On Astar Degens: I’m fully aligned with Marroz. They have been consistent contributors through difficult market conditions. They are still active, still here, still working with other projects. I would consider delisting only if they go dark entirely, which is not the case. There is also no standout project currently waiting that would justify freeing this slot. Removing them without a clear replacement candidate is not the right move.

One last point: Your project, SoneVibe, did not pass the current dApp Staking selection, and the other voice pushing hardest for this removal is in the same situation. Proposing to delist a selected project while your own sits outside the list is a direct conflict of interest. This thread was opened 10 days after the new system launched, targeting a specific project, by someone with a direct stake in freeing up that slot. We are not credulous, the Community Council is not credulous, and this context will be factored into how this discussion is weighted. If your project believes it meets the criteria for dApp Staking, the right path is to apply through the proper process, not to campaign for the removal of projects that are already contributing.

Happy to continue the conversation as the new system matures and more data becomes available.

---

Gaius_sama

Astar Foundation & Main Council

[Amil_Gaoul]

Dear @Gaius_sama ,
Thank you for your detailed response and for your continued dedication to the Astar ecosystem. Constructive friction is the bedrock of decentralized governance, and I appreciate the clarity you’ve provided regarding the AMA format and the Community Council’s purview.
However, as participants tasked with safeguarding the integrity of the Astar network and protecting ASTR token holders, we must ensure our decisions are governed by empirical data and the strict mandates of Tokenomics 3.0.

I would like to address your points systematically, focusing purely on the objective merits of the case.

1. The Question of “Conflict of Interest”
   You noted that my affiliation with a project currently outside the dApp Staking roster presents a conflict of interest. While transparency regarding affiliations is important, the identity of a proposer does not invalidate objective, verifiable on chain data. In governance, an argument’s merit rests on its factual accuracy, not its origin. The focus of this discourse must remain strictly on whether Astar Degens currently meets the rigorous standards demanded by Tokenomics 3.0. ASTR holders are best served when we debate the data, not the messenger.

2. The Matter of Timing and “Premature” Assessment.

You rightfully point out that Tokenomics 3.0 is only two weeks old. If we were judging Astar Degens solely on two weeks of new data, reassessment would indeed be premature. However, the data driving this proposal reflects the project’s current, sustained state, not a two week anomaly. Tokenomics 3.0 is not a clean slate that erases existing technical and economic realities; it is a filter designed to concentrate emissions exclusively on high impact projects.

3. The Evidence: Technical Integrity and Economic Utility.

While Astar Degens has historical significance and we respect their past contributions during the bear market, legacy status cannot be a substitute for current utility. The case for removal is rooted in three unignorable facts:

1st fact:

• Degraded Technical Infrastructure (Unpinned Metadata): A significant portion of the collection’s metadata links on IPFS are currently broken or returning 404 errors. For an NFT centric project, verifiable metadata is the baseline of operational competence. Subsidizing a project that is failing to maintain basic, decentralized hosting infrastructure sets a dangerous precedent for Astar’s technical standards.

Implication:
This represents a failure of baseline infrastructure. For an NFT native project, metadata availability is not optional, it is the product itself.

Technical Audit and Demostration:

All 10 000 Degens use this contract (0xd59fC6Bfd9732AB19b03664a45dC29B8421BDA9a) and the same CID root broken/unpinned. (bafybeiecbnxyn6aqvzqy3xe3wl6pzz7grqzu7wuaxedjosr4bi3qjxgcj4).

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafybeiecbnxyn6aqvzqy3xe3wl6pzz7grqzu7wuaxedjosr4bi3qjxgcj4/

On chain demostration: Irrefutable Evidence of Unpinned Metadata.

Astar Degens NFT Collection Astar token details | Blockscout

Executive Summary. All this is verifiable on chain. Use blockscout Astar Mainnet EVM explorer.

The Astar Degens collection (ERC-721, contract address 0xd59fC6Bfd9732AB19b03664a45dC29B8421BDA9a, total supply 10,000) has its metadata permanently unpinned on the public IPFS network.

The directory CID bafybeiecbnxyn6aqvzqy3xe3wl6pzz7grqzu7wuaxedjosr4bi3qjxgcj4 (which contains all token JSON files such as /802.json) is no longer retrievable from any public gateway.

This has been independently verified through direct testing and on chain data.

The images themselves remain accessible because they were migrated to a separate, pinned CID (QmSQ2FHMTi8MFa88ERS6niseb2ggeGrBvqsLZHgd23L8sF).

This is a classic case of partial pinning failure that breaks decentralized metadata resolution while leaving the visual assets intact.

Additional On Chain Evidence (Immutable & Verifiable)
Contract Address: 0xd59fC6Bfd9732AB19b03664a45dC29B8421BDA9a (verified on Astar EVM Mainnet, ChainID 592)

TokenURI function output (tested on token #802 and multiple others):
ipfs://bafybeiecbnxyn6aqvzqy3xe3wl6pzz7grqzu7wuaxedjosr4bi3qjxgcj4/{tokenId}.json

This URI is returned directly by the contract’s tokenURI(uint256) function (standard ERC-721). The root CID bafybeiecbnxyn6aqvzqy3xe3wl6pzz7grqzu7wuaxedjosr4bi3qjxgcj4 is therefore the canonical source of truth for all metadata.

Major Public Gateways Testing. Current Status (March 2026).

The following standard public IPFS gateways were tested against the metadata CID:

Gateway, Result and Status Test.

Full Test URL (Token #802)
Gateway:

IPFS
https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafybeiecbnxyn6aqvzqy3xe3wl6pzz7grqzu7wuaxedjosr4bi3qjxgcj4/802.json

Result:
Timeout / 503 / ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED

Status
Unpinned

IPFS.io (official)
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafybeiecbnxyn6aqvzqy3xe3wl6pzz7grqzu7wuaxedjosr4bi3qjxgcj4/802.json

**Timeout / 504 / Not Found

Unpinned**

Pinata Gateway
https://gateway.pinata.cloud/ipfs/bafybeiecbnxyn6aqvzqy3xe3wl6pzz7grqzu7wuaxedjosr4bi3qjxgcj4/802.json

429 Too Many Requests / CORS block / Not Found

Unpinned

dweb.link (Protocol Labs)
https://dweb.link/ipfs/bafybeiecbnxyn6aqvzqy3xe3wl6pzz7grqzu7wuaxedjosr4bi3qjxgcj4/802.json

Timeout / 504 / Not Found

Unpinned

nftstorage.link
https://nftstorage.link/ipfs/bafybeiecbnxyn6aqvzqy3xe3wl6pzz7grqzu7wuaxedjosr4bi3qjxgcj4/802.json

Timeout / 504

Unpinned

Technical Conclusion (Irrefutable)

A collection is considered pinned and decentralized only when its metadata root CID is retrievable from multiple independent public gateways without timeout, 404, or 503 errors.

The Astar Degens metadata CID bafybeiecbnxyn6aqvzqy3xe3wl6pzz7grqzu7wuaxedjosr4bi3qjxgcj4 fails this test across all major public gateways.

The images remain accessible only because they were moved to a separate pinned CID (QmSQ2FHMTi8MFa88ERS6niseb2ggeGrBvqsLZHgd23L8sF).

This constitutes a partial pinning failure that breaks the decentralized promise of the NFT collection.

This report is based on direct, reproducible testing and on chain data. All evidence can be independently verified by any party using the URLs and contract address provided above.

Continuation after the audit: NOTE: I quote the previous point to keep the track of the debate after the previous technical audit we made.
Quote of the previous point:
(3. The Evidence: Technical Integrity and Economic Utility.) Continuation

2nd fact:

• Negligible On Chain Velocity: A review of Astar EVM marketplaces shows minimal trading volume. The “activity” associated with the project is almost exclusively isolated to the claiming of rewards, rather than organic user engagement, trade, or ecosystem expansion.

3rd fact

• Misalignment with Tokenomics 3.0: The explicit goal of reducing dApp Staking to 16 slots was to eliminate free riders and concentrate rewards on projects delivering measurable liquidity and value accrual to ASTR. Astar Degens currently operates primarily as a pass through mechanism, distributing dApp Staking rewards internally to legacy OG holders. This is circular tokenomics, extracting value from network emissions without generating proportionate external utility or liquidity for the broader Astar ecosystem.

4. The “No Clear Replacement” Argument

Gaius Sama and @Marroz

You argued that removing Astar Degens without a clear replacement is not the right move. From a governance and fiduciary perspective, I respectfully disagree. The 16 slots in Tokenomics 3.0 are not entitlements; they are performance based incentives. If a project fails to meet the criteria of measurable value accrual, subsidizing it actively harms ASTR holders through unwarranted token dilution. An empty slot that preserves ASTR value and emissions is objectively better for the ecosystem than a filled slot that does not generate a positive return on investment for the network.

@Maarten
The previous point is very important. And
Also the conclusion

Conclusion

We all share the exact same goal: the long term success and sustainability of the Astar ecosystem. But to achieve that, we must enforce the standards of Tokenomics 3.0 without sentimentality. I urge the Community Council to look past the personalities involved in this thread and audit the empirical data: the broken IPFS links, the on chain volume, and the circular reward distribution.
If the data shows that Astar Degens is driving measurable, outsized value to ASTR holders, they should remain. If it shows they are merely passing network emissions to existing holders while neglecting basic technical maintenance, fiduciary duty requires their removal.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to the Council’s objective review of the on chain metrics.
Respectfully,
Amil

[AstarDegensDAO]

Hello @Amil_Gaoul ,

While Astar Degens originated as an NFT-focused community, our role goes beyond internal engagement. We act as an onboarding layer for new users entering the ecosystem, particularly those who do not start with DeFi. Through events, campaigns, and gamified participation, we help create long-term user retention and gradually guide users toward broader Astar products.

Regarding reward distribution, our model is intentionally designed to circulate ASTR within an active and committed user base. By redistributing staking rewards, we incentivize holding, participation, and alignment with the network, rather than short-term capital movement.

We run regular campaigns to reach new community members like our actual campaign:

Astar Degens

We are always open to feedback on this approach and understand that it may create perceived conflicts within the Tokenomics 3.0 framework. Yet it is important to stress that this model is implemented with no bad intent, but rather with the goal of strengthening long-term engagement. This supports sustained participation rather than extraction.

On-chain activity may appear limited when viewed purely through a DeFi lens, but important context is missing. With the closure of tofunft & bluez NFT-marketplaces, the ecosystem was left without a functioning marketplace layer. In response, we stepped in to build our own marketplace solution with a new version soon to be released designed not only for Astar Degens but as open infrastructure that other projects on Astar, and potentially Soneium, can also use. In parallel, we are introducing NFT staking and have adjusted our reward structure so that only staked NFTs will receive rewards, explicitly aiming to incentivize active participation rather than passive holding. In addition we will move from an off-chain voting to an on-chain voting to increase onchain presence. We remain convinced this approach strengthens user engagement. This is also reflected in our position among the top dApps in Astar dApp Staking, with over 174 stakers supporting our project. Additionally, we place strong emphasis on transparency, regularly publishing detailed reports on our progress. A level of openness that is still uncommon across many dApps.

Astar Degens DAO Reporting Q1 2026

The New Astar Degens Portal is Live! Hi Astar Community, In our last monthly newsletter, we covered a lot of ground regarding staking, the treasury, and governance. You can check out that Astar Degens DAO – Q3+Q4 2025 Reporting . While my last update was in December, I haven’t been quiet—I’ve been building. I’ve put a lot of time and heart into creating a “forever home” for our community, and I am excited to show you the result. The new Astar Degens Portal is officially live! …

Astar Degens DAO – Q3+Q4 2025 Reporting

Dear Astar Community, based on the feedback we will switching to a quarterly thread. Back in August, we wrapped up our last monthly newsletter with a lot happening across staking, treasury, governance, and ecosystem moves Old Thread Here’s what’s happens since this point. NFT Staking Vote → Passed with more than 50 agrees. Huge thanks to everyone who voted and pushed this forward. Prototype is built, …

Beyond our core product, we have actively supported broader ecosystem growth. We participated in the Soneium starting campaign both financially and through visible cross-promotions, helping guide users toward emerging projects such as Sake, Kyo, Astake, Cometswap, Bifrost, and others. We joined the Astar AMAs, created YouTube videos and made a continuous effort to highlight and amplify ecosystem initiatives, not just our own. In the past we also contributed meaningfully to seedround investments across the Astar EVM ecosystem.

On NFT trading volume and social metrics, we acknowledge there is room for improvement. That said, current market conditions have impacted the entire NFT space, and our priority has been maintaining a strong, stable holder base rather than speculative volume. It is also important to clarify that the screenshots referenced do not accurately represent our overall social efforts, as they highlight only two tweets that were retweets from the community rather than original content from the Astar Degens account. Our broader activity reflects more consistent and meaningful engagement, although much of it happens within the community itself. We do, however, recognize the need to further improve our external visibility.

While we are not a DeFi protocol, we believe ecosystems require more than financial infrastructure alone. Community-driven projects like ours contribute to demand, culture, and user stickiness — all of which are essential for long-term growth and a healthy ecosystem.

We respect the governance discussion around dApp Staking slots and agree that impact should be measurable. At the same time, we believe impact should include user acquisition and retention alongside liquidity metrics. We remain committed to improving transparency, expanding utility, and continuing to contribute meaningfully to t

he Astar ecosystem.

Regards,

AstarDegensDAO Council

[Jonas1]

Hi @Amil_Gaoul, following up on the IPFS metadata issue. I’ve hit a technical dead end I want to be transparent about. Two months ago, the metadata was unpinned completely and i spend a lot of hours to fix this issue; I’ve since recovered the data, but the core issue remains.

​Because the original founders departed and the collection was minted without an Admin Wallet, we have no way to update the baseURI on-chain. While I have the files re-pinned on Pinata, these generate new CIDs that the immutable contract cannot point to.

​Current Technical Status:

• ​Temporary Fix: I’m using a Supabase table as a localized backup for our Platform.
• ​Centralization Risk: This database currently lives on a single Hetzner Cloud VPS (IP: 5.75.188.140) located in Germany. While this keeps us online for now, it is a single point of failure and doesn’t fix the metadata on external platforms.
• ​The Long-term Solution: I believe the only 100% viable path is a ‘Burn and Remint’ migration. This allows us to move to a contract where we have administrative control and fully decentralized, functional metadata.

​Project Status:

We are still pushing for the official marketplace launch next month.

Note that due to current Astar price action, all council compensation is currently set to zero to keep the project lean.

​If you have a workaround for updating an immutable contract without an admin key, I’m all ears. Thanks for the support.

If you are interested what we already did to fix the issue…

1. Standard “Pin by CID” (Pinata Dashboard)
   What we tried: Entering the CID into the Pinata web UI to pin it to their servers.
   Why it failed: The request timed out and expired after 24 hours. The IPFS Bitswap protocol could not individually discover, request, and verify 10,000 tiny JSON files across the public network before the time limit ran out.
2. Direct Folder Upload (Web UI)
   What we tried: Attempting to manually upload the unzipped folder of 10,000 JSONs directly to pinning services to keep the same URL.
   Why it failed: Web browsers freeze or drop connections when handling 10,000 individual files at once. Furthermore, if the chunking settings (like HAMT sharding or raw leaves) don’t perfectly match the original upload, it generates a completely different CID.
3. DHT Routing Diagnostics
   What we tried: Querying the IPFS “phonebook” (delegated-ipfs.dev/routing/v1) to see who actually holds the files.
   The Result: We found the core problem. The entire 10k collection is relying on a single point of failure: one server hosted on Hetzner (5.75.188.140). There is no redundant backup on the IPFS network.
4. Forced Peering via Pinata API (PowerShell)
   What we tried: We wrote a PowerShell script using the Pinata API and the hostNodes parameter. This bypassed the public network search and forced Pinata to directly connect to the specific Hetzner server holding the files.
   Why it failed: Although we successfully forced the handshake (the status changed to retrieving), the transfer ultimately failed. The Hetzner node was either rate-limiting the connection, dropping requests, or timing out before it could serve all 10,000 blocks to Pinata.
5. Gateway CAR File Export (PowerShell Clone)
   What we tried: We attempted to use an official IPFS gateway (ipfs.io/api/v0/dag/export) to automatically package the exact Merkle DAG structure into a single .car file so we could download it locally and re-upload it.
   Why it failed: The public gateways timed out. The original Hetzner server was too slow or unresponsive to stream the 10,000 blocks to the gateway, causing the export to crash.
   The Bottom Line: Every decentralized retrieval method has failed because the single server hosting the data is unresponsive or incapable of serving the 10,000 files over the IPFS protocol.

Regards,
Jonas

[ilan]

Hey @ERC20s
Nice to meet you.
Not sure why you claim that we are not active or transparent.
Also, not sure why you claim that the bridge is full of bugs…
558 Astar degens were moved to Soneium without a hitch.
I posted the smart contract address a few times already, and it is very easy to see the bridge activity.
Let me remind you that we built the bridge without getting paid for it.
Astar did not need to pay a cent in advance for our effort, under the presumption that many AD holders would want/need to use the bridge to migrate to Soneium.
This did not happen.
The project was a complete bust for us. We definitely lost money on it.
Astar was fair enough to offer and provide the dApp staking grant, and we highly appreciate it, but blaming us for nepotism when we never took any payment for the work we did is unfair and inaccurate.

Luis is an ally and introduced us to Astar.
He made the connection with the ADs that needed our services. Neither he nor we got paid by Astar for building the bridge.

We did try to get other NFT collections to use the bridge, but there is so little NFT activity on Astar at this point, after the Tofu NFT market closed, that it was in vain.

We also tried to support another project, the SFY game development company, in migrating their game from Moonbeam to Astar, but they did not meet their milestones, and the project was taken off the UGC grant.
Again, we were asked by Astar community members to support them, and never received any payment.

Regarding the Twitter account error that you encountered, We have pivoted the company from only NFT bridging to a more general Non-Fungible Assets bridging, and the new URL of the Twitter account is https://x.com/OnchainBridges

[ilan]

https://x.com/OnchainBridges

[ilan]

As a last comment on your attack @ERC20s
This is what we feel about our relationship with Astar.

Astar x OnChain Bridges: Building What Comes Next, Together - onchainbridges...

We published this after we were informed that OnChain Bridges had been selected to participate as one of the 16 projects in the new dApp staking process.

Ilan

[ERC20s]

I wasn’t really intending to “attack” the project.

My dapp was removed without any discussion (despite bringing over 200,000 unique addresses to astar over the years). I reached out to some team members directly and the response I got was that it was “complex”.
So I’m Just trying to understand what makes onchainbridges better than all of the other projects that were delisted.
I also have never received a cent from astar. As all of my dapp staking rewards went into uniswap pool to support liquidity.

So to defend my original opinion:

1. I didn’t say the bridge contract itself has bugs but the website did (which has been removed since I posted). The new https://onchainbridges.com/ page is better but still loads up the about page before forwarding you to OnChain Bridges. (which is a very typical loading issue that ai frequently produces.)
2. One of the new astar policies was that the dapp needs to be self-sustainable. So telling me that it is unprofitable is not helping the point. And if you’re telling me that it will be more sustainable in the future, policies state that the product needs to be already built.
3. Ramz has contributed an insane amount of time, energy and skill to the astar project. Which I have huge respect for. So I’m not saying anything bad against him. But having ramz vouch for nftBridges is a bias IMO. Without the transparency. We don’t know if anyone else vouched for nftbridges..
4. You didn’t mention CCIP?

[ilan]

@ERC20s

ention

I am sorry about your Dapp. That’s unfortunate.
I can’t really answer the question you are asking about why we were included while others were omitted.
We were informed that we were included.

Not sure also about the AI claim…
We wrote and built the new website ourselves, with the help of a human contractor.
The information about the company is in the About section of the website. https://about.onchainbridges.com and the bridge is in the shorter URL: https://onchainbridges.com

We have been self-sustaining for most of the last three years.

We have been working with the Astar and the Astar Degens team for a while now, and they can vouch for our delivery and attitude if they choose to.
I am quite content with what we produced and delivered for Astar.

Have a good day.

[FFR23]

We need to have a chat about the Community Treasury dApp.

1. Its sucking up all of the Astar from dApps that actually need support.
2. Are payouts actually going to ambassadors? UCG isn’t even a thing anymore. Where are the payouts going?
3. It’s not even tier 1 with 400+ million staked.
4. Imo all 16 dApps should be earning rewards at a minimum. Currently bottom 3 or 4 are getting nothing.

[Juminstock]

@FFR23 There are several discrepancies in what you mentioned, let me clarify them:

@FFR23

Are payouts actually going to ambassadors?

1. Ambassador compensations are distributed quarterly using funds from the Community Treasury. If you have doubts about this, you can verify it yourself here: Subsquare | Astar Community Council Motions

@FFR23

UCG isn’t even a thing anymore.

2. UCG has not ceased to exist; it has simply evolved to align with the new dApp Staking model, and we will make the official announcement next week.

@FFR23

Where are the payouts going?

3. Which payouts are you referring to?

@FFR23

It’s not even tier 1 with 400+ million staked.

4. In fact, the Community Treasury is already part of the highest tier in the current dApp Staking model. I encourage you to review our post to better understand the new model: https://astar.network/blog/d-app-staking-revamp-236

@FFR23

Imo all 16 dApps should be earning rewards at a minimum. Currently bottom 3 or 4 are getting nothing.

5. That is the intention. Soon, with UCG 2.0, the Community Treasury will support those dApps.

cc @Community_Council

[FFR23]

@Juminstock

Ambassador compensations are distributed quarterly using funds from the Community Treasury. If you have doubts about this, you can verify it yourself here: Subsquare | Astar Community Council Motions

When i ask are payouts actually going to ambassadors - i did not doubt this - however my perspective is that ambassador payouts are a waste of funds. The top staking dApp on Astar is being used to fund…..deadweight Ambassadors.

The reason this dApp has the most Astar staked is because its hard for a dApp to gain the trust of the community after so many bad dApps in the past - but now even the community treasury dApp can’t be trusted to act in an efficient way.

Ambassador comments are way down in the forum ever since the new evaluation metric was introduced for them.

dApp staking payouts should be for technical development only - using payouts for Ambassadors is another inflation leak that needs to be addressed as there is effectively zero return on value here.

2. UCG has not ceased to exist; it has simply evolved to align with the new dApp Staking model, and we will make the official announcement next week.

Ok thanks for the new information

5. That is the intention. Soon, with UCG 2.0, the Community Treasury will support those dApps.

Excellent news thanks - great to see some common sense being applied

[Juminstock]

@FFR23 I agree with you that in the past there was a large distribution of tokens simply to “compensate” ambassadors for their time and dedication to the Astar ecosystem, but I do not agree with your view that this represents a leak or waste of funds as you mentioned.

Technology alone does nothing; we cannot expect to build something great that no one uses. It needs to be communicated.

The community is the backbone of our ecosystem. It requires management, support, and coordination.

And who do you think is dedicating their time to support all of this? The ambassadors, together with us as the Core Team.

We have already discussed this in the past. I even created a forum post where I requested feedback from all community members: Astar Foundation Forward: Ambassador Fellowship Revamp - #23 by Juminstock

In any case, this is not the appropriate thread to discuss this, and to be honest, we have already covered this topic before.